Offtopic: OpenAL?

I think you need to lay off the crack pipe.

Excuse me?

I am a little distrustful of Creative’s own server after how they handled
their LAST OpenAL tree and the emu10k1 driver (which used to be in CVS

The version hosted at is ANCIENT and not updated.
They were updating Loki CVS directly. I suggest you get in contact with
Garin and anyone else that you probably will need to (I also suggest you
contact Chris Parnell who did the 4 speaker-supporting version of OpenAL
for the emu10k1’s) and work out a real hosting arrangement.

Creative has just moved AL hosting to their opensource server. This only
happened in the past couple of days.

It had been there previously - it just was not updated. At all.

Is the Creative tree suddenly being actually maintained? Remember that
the emu10k1 project recently stopped using because
of many problems like … nobody outside of Creative could access it, at
all. Ahh, gotta love firewall rules.

Joe Valenzuela has write access to the CVS, and
he’s outside the Creative firewall. Do a “cvs log linux/src/al_main.h” on
the Creative tree:

The reason emu10k1 is no longer hosted by Creative was because their
server was cracked. Creative took a couple weeks getting the thing back
online. They also have not been real helpful.

I don’t expect much better care of the OpenAL tree given the OpenAL tree
they let languish in CVS for about a year without one single update - the
updates were happening to the Loki CVS. (which was amusing given other
factors, but I digress.

It’s arguable they are the perfect people to host it. I’d argue that they
are the least appropriate though.On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 07:45:27AM -0500, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:

Joseph Carter Hey, that’s MY freak show!

Now I can finally explain to everyone why I do this. I just got $7 worth
of free stuff for working on Debian !

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available

There are indeed two ways you can read this, but I think you’re somewhat
getting the second one wrong. The first one is that the code must be
under the GPL - in which case BSDish and other licenses are not at all
compatible with the GPL because they are not the GPL. Only the LGPL would
be since it specifically allows sublicensing under the GPL.

The other way is a little more tollerant, and is more widely accepted. As
an aside, contract law says that in any case of ambiguity, interpretations
which best serve the contractees (that’d be us) are used - in this case it
means that a judge should rule that: The GPL requires only that components
forming the derivative work must be licensed under the same terms as those
of the GPL. Licensing under the exact language of the GPL is not at all

However, under this interprettation, the license of all parts may not pose
additional restrictions beyond those of the GPL (ie, that you can’t use
the thing commercially for example - you CAN sell a copy of a GPL’d
program provided that you supply source as well, but you cannot sell fmod
along with it…) You’re also in trouble if you cannot meet requirements
of the GPL, ie that you provide source code for the whole thing. Last I
looked, fmod had no source.

It does not matter if the fmod list says it’s okay with them or not, the
GPL says it’s not okay. If this is a problem for you, the GPL is the
wrong license for you. You can still use the LGPL just fine, or an
altered GPL license which provides an exception for fmod specifically. Or
you can have a look at a license like the Clarified Artistic (I do not at
all recommend the original Artistic license used by perl since it’s as
long as the GPL and says less than half as much…) Somewhere on you should find a ling to a license mailing list which is
more suitable to discussing these and other solutions.

It’s hard for me to imagine why fmod is not itself under a free software
license as it is - the software seems to be most useful to that group. I
suspect the primary motivation is the thought that they might be able to
make a few bucks off of it, but somehow I don’t expect they will make a
whole lot for their work as most people who might pay them for it don’t
actually need to do so.On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 10:52:42AM -0500, Jason Hoffoss wrote:

? If your product is free, you can use it for free. Regardless of what
license your app is.

Obviously you have never read the GPL:

  1. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
    of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
    distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
    above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:


b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that IN
WHOLE OR IN PART contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, TO BE LICENSED AS A WHOLE at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.

(emphasis added)

Does this mean that fmod is under the GPL because you use it in your
program? Cool, where’s the source?

Are you sure you are interpreting that correctly? I can see 2 ways that
could be interpreted. “under the terms of this License” could be meaning
that the fmod must be licensed under the same terms as the GPL, thus
becoming GPL itself as well really. However, it could also mean that fmod
must be licensed at no charge within this work, in order to be complient
"under the terms of this License". I lawyer might know for sure, but it
looks ambiguous to me.

Joseph Carter Sooner or later, BOOM!

red dye causes cancer, haven’t you heard? (;
fucking everything causes cancer, haven’t you heard?
no, that causes aids

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available